"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"TOM" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 22:17:13 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI"
wrote:
Tom,

I hate to break your ham hating crusade but the NTS can't run any
traffic,
if none is sent to it.

meaning you are greing with me and Tom

why is it ham hating if you say and ham hating if I do

you also make my point no vital traffic can be passed by ham radio if
it was not sent to ham radio

I had the exact same complaint. I did manage to
handle a few messages, but NOTHING like I was expecting.

which brings you to stating the same thing I was

I have since found that the American Red Cross, for WHATEVER REASON
decided
that ham radio was not good enough to use. Other than for a VHF
Telephone
network between shelters that is.

which is a dangerous state of affairs for one of the supports that we
use in our spectrum battles

but you were unwilling to even discuss such things


Not our bad Tom. We were there, ready, willing, and able.

maybe we were maybe we were not, but it seems whatever the truth were
not seen as ready willing and able, and the preception of the served
agencies is more important than the reality.

Exactly... the amateur service had an unprecedented golden opportunity
for
PR at New Orleans and they blew-it big time. Probably not so much from
lack
of interest by individual amateurs but from lack of leadership from the
ARRL. Now it is seen the ARRL is trying to re-make the amateur service
after the fact. The truth is the ARRL is more interested in running a
business than promoting a service. For giggles... I'll say the shift in
interest by the ARRL started when they changed the format of QST back in
the
1970's. Remember how many of us remarked that QST didn't seem anything
more
that a radio catalog---and many of us dropped our subscription?
Seriously,
the ARRL hasn't done anything in recent times other than to publish
which,
in many cases, are nothing more that collections of QST articles. I do
have a copy of, 'The ARRL Emergency Communication Handbook'---it should
contain twice the present content.

Nevertheless, I am happy to see discussion on the topic
continue---especially if they are constructive comments.


\

I don't agree that it is/was a failure with or from the ARRL. The ARRL
National Traffic System was and is STILL running. I operate it every
single day and evening. I know what it does or doesn't do.

I believe it is the RED CROSS that is behind this non use of a resource.
I personally delivered several immediate notifications to families that
their people were alive. Nothing more. At my expense on the phone. I
was just a small cog in a large wheel. And these DID NOT COME FROM THE
RED CROSS.
They came from the BAPTIST Church group that was in Biloxi feeding
thousands per day. And in between were able to send out some messages. I
can't describe how grateful these people were. Can you imagine what
publicity Ham Radio COULD HAVE RECEIVED if the RED CROSS would have
allowed the MOSTLY IDLE operators at the shelters to send out HW traffic?
Don't tell me the ARRL dropped the ball. It was the RED CROSS.

Dan/W4NTI



Amen brother !
Ace - WH2T

Un Trustworthy eh? Beats the hell out of being a fagot and a child molester
though don't it? You piece of garbage.

Dan/W4NTI

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:59:39 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI"
wrote:

Of course you won't believe me, or anyone else. But the cell phone
network
was down for the majority of New Orleans. I know people that went there
to
repair it.

I would believe some trust worthy

In fact some hams also helped repair the tower sites. Mostly getting
antennas back in working shape, and getting batteries and/or generators up
and running.

As for why text gets through easier and better than voice. It's just like
CW Markie, and if you understand that mode it would be easier for you to
comprehend text vs voice on a cell system.
shove your condesntion asshole

I know why it get though the system better when the system is under
stress

if you you would read you would know I was never confused on the issue

however the fact text was getting if very slwoly through much of the
city shows the network was not completely down, just damaged and over
loaded and in need of repair to restore full utily of the system

cuting snid remarks
Dan/W4NTI

wrote in message
news
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:22:14 -0700, Cmdr Buzz Corey
wrote:

wrote:

Cell phone does indeed show signs of being usable as a true emergency
network

How? The entire cell network was down in NO. The only way to get cell
coverage there was out on some remote point a few people managed to get
to and make a few calls.

not accrdoing to MSNBC while the netwaork was not working for voice it
was working for text according to MSNBC

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:59:42 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI"
wrote:


"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

I think the idea is that person 1 transmits to the end of his
block,
then person 2 transmits to the end of their block. And so on and so
on.
Be just like the olde days when the "relay" meant something in
ARRL.
They will need every one of those "millions" of FRS radio owners.

When a kid did you ever play the party game 'pass it on'? You know
where
you whisper something in someone's ear, they then pass it on to the
next
person, then the next, then the next, ect. By the time it gets to the
last person it isn't anything like the orginal message. You don't need
that when you are trying to get critical information to a destination.

So the "Relay" in ARRL is a useless construct?

Wunnerful in theory, useless in practice?


No it simply means that without a structured format, message training,
means of checking the message (such as word count), etc that the system
breaks down. The formal message handling systems have these. The FRS
system does not.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Exactly correct Dee. Here is something I made up years ago.

"It takes two things to communicate, an operator at both ends"

A slight addition would be "trained operator"

wrong agian

Dan/W4NTI

Every body is wrong except Mikey. Everyone is a liar except Mikey.

Hey Mikey if you dont keep your lights on at night. START.

Dan/W4NTI

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:59:43 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI"
wrote:


"TOM" wrote in message
...

Dan/W4NTI wrote in message
ink.net...

[snip]
I wonder how this FRS service with toy radio's is going to talk past
the
end
of their block? Oh with that useless ham stuff? On
Vhf/Uhf.....uh....Oh
I
get it, FRS and V/UHF ham radio will be the emergency channel and then
carrier pigeon will take care of the long haul stuff.

One thing about it....Ya just cain't fix stupid.

Dan/W4NTI

It's already being done... CERT http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/CERT/
communities are using FRS to organize their efforts in reponse to
disaster
preparedness or simply community watch and its working quite well. The
idea
that a ham is needed to supply communications is somewhat
outdated---hams
have out-geeked themselves. If a CERT member has a radio that doesn't
work
just throw it away and get another. What really matters is organization
and
team skills and communities have plenty of indviduals professionally
trained
in all manner of skills besides a token ham or two. Some CERT teams are
guarded about disclosing their capabilities and SOP...

Besides, who's to say that repeaters won't become available to extend
the
range of FRS radios---if there is a need anything is possible. What
about
GMRS? Take a look at what the Aussies have done with their UHF CB
allocations http://www.alphalink.com.au/~parkerp/cb.htm

The issue with the future of FRS-type communications should be carefully
considered. I think that amateur long-haul coms are becoming less
important
compared to short range communications networks---especially within
communties. Considering the ease of getting FRS communications the
amateur
service has little to offer---unless amateurs can re-invent themselves.

Maybe... just maybe... stupid can be fixed.



There is nothing at all wrong with using FRS, GMRS or any of the citizen
accessible radio systems. But there is NO REASON to re-invent the wheel.

Ham radio can and does provide long haul and short haul communications.

then why did it not carry it according to you
cut

Whats the matter? You too stupid to read. That has already been responded
to. You fagot jerk.

Dan/W4NTI

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:29:44 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI"
wrote:

Un Trustworthy eh? Beats the hell out of being a fagot and a child molester
though don't it? You piece of garbage.

Dan what do you expect to be called other than a bigot when you use
such language?

I am not a child molestor I am bisexual

you are clearly untrustworthy when you believe that the one equates to
the other

makes it hard to rely on anything you say when you spout **** like
that

Dan/W4NTI

wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:59:39 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI"
wrote:

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:31:18 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:59:42 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI"
wrote:


"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

cut

"It takes two things to communicate, an operator at both ends"

A slight addition would be "trained operator"

wrong agian

Dan/W4NTI

Every body is wrong except Mikey. Everyone is a liar except Mikey.

Hey Mikey if you dont keep your lights on at night. START.

more threats

Dan/W4NTI


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:32:33 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:59:43 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI"
wrote:


"TOM" wrote in message
...

Dan/W4NTI wrote in message
ink.net...
cut


Maybe... just maybe... stupid can be fixed.



There is nothing at all wrong with using FRS, GMRS or any of the citizen
accessible radio systems. But there is NO REASON to re-invent the wheel.

Ham radio can and does provide long haul and short haul communications.

then why did it not carry it according to you
cut

Whats the matter? You too stupid to read. That has already been responded
to. You fagot jerk.

if you want (or if you don't want )as you seem to I can bring a nice
sample of your recent and past behavoir to the FBI no extra trouble
really

Dan/W4NTI


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"TOM" wrote in message
...

Dan/W4NTI wrote in message
.net...

"TOM" wrote in message
...

Dan/W4NTI wrote in message
ink.net...

[snip]
I wonder how this FRS service with toy radio's is going to talk past
the
end
of their block? Oh with that useless ham stuff? On
Vhf/Uhf.....uh....Oh
I
get it, FRS and V/UHF ham radio will be the emergency channel and
then
carrier pigeon will take care of the long haul stuff.

One thing about it....Ya just cain't fix stupid.

Dan/W4NTI

It's already being done... CERT http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/CERT/
communities are using FRS to organize their efforts in reponse to
disaster
preparedness or simply community watch and its working quite well. The
idea
that a ham is needed to supply communications is somewhat
outdated---hams
have out-geeked themselves. If a CERT member has a radio that doesn't
work
just throw it away and get another. What really matters is
organization
and
team skills and communities have plenty of indviduals professionally
trained
in all manner of skills besides a token ham or two. Some CERT teams
are
guarded about disclosing their capabilities and SOP...

Besides, who's to say that repeaters won't become available to extend
the
range of FRS radios---if there is a need anything is possible. What
about
GMRS? Take a look at what the Aussies have done with their UHF CB
allocations http://www.alphalink.com.au/~parkerp/cb.htm

The issue with the future of FRS-type communications should be
carefully
considered. I think that amateur long-haul coms are becoming less
important
compared to short range communications networks---especially within
communties. Considering the ease of getting FRS communications the
amateur
service has little to offer---unless amateurs can re-invent themselves.

Maybe... just maybe... stupid can be fixed.



There is nothing at all wrong with using FRS, GMRS or any of the citizen
accessible radio systems. But there is NO REASON to re-invent the wheel.

Ham radio can and does provide long haul and short haul communications.

Why throw away that capability (HF) to put all the eggs in a repeater
system
that can, does and likely will fail when most needed.

Furthermore I am trying to show you that once communications is
established,
ham, FRS, CB, GMRS, whatever then how is this link sent further down the
line? Such as what happened recently on the Gulf Coast.

I.E. Red Cross requests amateur radio assistance. Hundreds go to their
help. They say we only want you for "shelter communications". VHF will
do
fine. NO WAY TO PASS IT FURTHER DOWN THE LINE as in ....how to get commo
from Montgomery Red Cross to the shelters and back?
Ham Radio High Frequency on the ESTABLISHED ARRL National Traffic System
nets. Which were ready, willing, and able to do so.

It is NOT Amateur radios fault that the Red Cross apparently chose to sit
on
their hands and NOT UTILIZE the system.

Dan/W4NTI

You make valid points... Why is amateur radio so dependent upon the Red
Cross? Heck, looking back over my ham experience seemingly all the Red
Cross provided was a place to put a repeater and have emergency power. To
be honest... the Red Cross screwed us in NO---perhaps we had an image that
was lacking. \

I don't know what the problem is with the Red Cross. But I remember about
20 years
ago that the local club and the Red Cross seperated. Also about that time,
I believe
Birmingham Al club did also. We ended affiliating with the Salvation Army.
At that
point I moved out of the area and lost track of clubs and such.

I talked with the ARRL on the subject. And there IS a memorandum of
understanding.
Apparantly most to all at RC don't read or are unable to comprehend. OR are
just
plain ignorant. Take your pick. Bottom line is THEY dropped the ball.

In that case we ought to provide a service to some other
organization/s. I don't know where the future lies for the amateur
service.
The numbers (of hams) just don't stack up against the numbers that can be
equipped with license free radios or radios that require a simple
operating
permit. You can be sure if non-hams can get organized and provide a
needed
service an important part of what justifies the amateur service will no
longer exist with the consequence that any leadership roles provided by
the
amateur service will evaporate.

A lot of hams are doing just that. SATERN seems to be the choice. And of
course
the ARRL ARES setup.


Perhaps this will happen anyway. We've watched the amateur service slowly
being de-regulated. A time may come where present day Amateur, FRS, MURS,
GMRS... will all become part of, say, the 'citizens communications
service'.

You mention HF allocations as being a strong point for the amateur
service;
however, I don't think that long haul communications are necessary for the
bulk of emergency communications---these disasters are local in scope.

Katrina changed that mind set Tom. HF provided a very important role in
establishing
workable commo. I spent a good week either being directly involved or
monitoring
HF networks on various bands. I will elaborate on the Alabama connection to
it all.

We operated mainly on our normal net frequency of 3965. Also on 40 meters
individual
operators helped out on various 40 meter frequencies. Not immediatly but
very soon
after the magnitude was determined on the massive damage the Red Cross
established
via AMATEUR RADIO operators, under the ARRL Section Manager, Greg W4OZK
a network linking the shelters in the disaster area with Red Cross
Headquarters in
Montgomery. HF Ham stations were co-located in shelters and Red Cross areas
in the
disaster area. Most of the intercommunication was done on 75 and 40 meters.

I think you will see a change of the attitude that keeps communications
needs to a local
area. It may NOT be needed too often. But it does need to be planned and
TRAINED
for. That is what the National Traffic System should be oriented towards
now a days.

Just my opinion there Tom.



To
my way of thinking if anyone needs to communicate over long distances it
will be primary relief organizations and they can do that over satellite
or
their own HF networks, besides, landlines generally remain
intact---providing an access point somewhere.

But Tom there WAS nothing that worked. As Hams like to keep reminding
everyone....We are the backup system. When everything else fails, ham
radio
will be able to communicate. Not because it is so structured. But just the
opposite...because it is NOT so structured, restricted or controlled.

The FCC had to issue blanket approvals for the commercial folks to even
attempt to inter-link and communicate.

All the hams needed was to know where they were needed. And thats the
facts.


I find the Australian VKS-737
an interesting example of what non-hams (CB) can do with five HF channels
http://www.vks737.on.net/ . Additionally, my experiences in the Caribbean
have made me become aware of how non-hams, who are boaters, can create
highly organized and effective communications networks using the HF
maritime
allocations.

Discussion on the topic can hurt.



I'll read about that Australian thing. I had not heard of it till now. And
tell us of the
Caribbean experiences. I am open to any and all good thought on how to make
EMCOM
work better. Except from that nitwit Markie that is.

Dan/W4NTI

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:52:17 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI"
wrote:


"TOM" wrote in message
...

Dan/W4NTI wrote in message
.net...

cut

It is NOT Amateur radios fault that the Red Cross apparently chose to sit
on
their hands and NOT UTILIZE the system.

Dan/W4NTI

You make valid points... Why is amateur radio so dependent upon the Red
Cross? Heck, looking back over my ham experience seemingly all the Red
Cross provided was a place to put a repeater and have emergency power. To
be honest... the Red Cross screwed us in NO---perhaps we had an image that
was lacking. \

I don't know what the problem is with the Red Cross. But I remember about
20 years
ago that the local club and the Red Cross seperated. Also about that time,
I believe
Birmingham Al club did also. We ended affiliating with the Salvation Army.
At that
point I moved out of the area and lost track of clubs and such.

I talked with the ARRL on the subject. And there IS a memorandum of
understanding.
Apparantly most to all at RC don't read or are unable to comprehend. OR are
just
plain ignorant. Take your pick. Bottom line is THEY dropped the ball.

taking about the Red Croos in such terms as you use above as of course
sure to endear the ARS to them,

even if the words were valid

guess you missed any lession concerning the word "Tact"


In that case we ought to provide a service to some other
organization/s. I don't know where the future lies for the amateur
service.
The numbers (of hams) just don't stack up against the numbers that can be
equipped with license free radios or radios that require a simple
operating
permit. You can be sure if non-hams can get organized and provide a
needed
service an important part of what justifies the amateur service will no
longer exist with the consequence that any leadership roles provided by
the
amateur service will evaporate.

A lot of hams are doing just that. SATERN seems to be the choice. And of
course
the ARRL ARES setup.


Perhaps this will happen anyway. We've watched the amateur service slowly
being de-regulated. A time may come where present day Amateur, FRS, MURS,
GMRS... will all become part of, say, the 'citizens communications
service'.

You mention HF allocations as being a strong point for the amateur
service;
however, I don't think that long haul communications are necessary for the
bulk of emergency communications---these disasters are local in scope.

Katrina changed that mind set Tom. HF provided a very important role in
establishing
workable commo. I spent a good week either being directly involved or
monitoring
HF networks on various bands. I will elaborate on the Alabama connection to
it all.

We operated mainly on our normal net frequency of 3965. Also on 40 meters
individual
operators helped out on various 40 meter frequencies. Not immediatly but
very soon
after the magnitude was determined on the massive damage the Red Cross
established
via AMATEUR RADIO operators, under the ARRL Section Manager, Greg W4OZK
a network linking the shelters in the disaster area with Red Cross
Headquarters in
Montgomery. HF Ham stations were co-located in shelters and Red Cross areas
in the
disaster area. Most of the intercommunication was done on 75 and 40 meters.

I think you will see a change of the attitude that keeps communications
needs to a local
area. It may NOT be needed too often. But it does need to be planned and
TRAINED
for. That is what the National Traffic System should be oriented towards
now a days.

Just my opinion there Tom.



To
my way of thinking if anyone needs to communicate over long distances it
will be primary relief organizations and they can do that over satellite
or
their own HF networks, besides, landlines generally remain
intact---providing an access point somewhere.

But Tom there WAS nothing that worked. As Hams like to keep reminding
everyone....We are the backup system. When everything else fails, ham
radio
will be able to communicate. Not because it is so structured. But just the
opposite...because it is NOT so structured, restricted or controlled.

could you make up you mind?


The FCC had to issue blanket approvals for the commercial folks to even
attempt to inter-link and communicate.

of course because the copertypes are afraid to move without premission
a mistsep could cost the abilty to legaly use the stuff they have
spent such capital on


All the hams needed was to know where they were needed. And thats the
facts.


I find the Australian VKS-737
an interesting example of what non-hams (CB) can do with five HF channels
http://www.vks737.on.net/ . Additionally, my experiences in the Caribbean
have made me become aware of how non-hams, who are boaters, can create
highly organized and effective communications networks using the HF
maritime
allocations.

Discussion on the topic can hurt.



I'll read about that Australian thing. I had not heard of it till now. And
tell us of the
Caribbean experiences. I am open to any and all good thought on how to make
EMCOM
work better. Except from that nitwit Markie that is.

will prehaps I should not chide for being inconsistant Dan

Dan/W4NTI


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

Aww, poor Marky, he sees "threats" everywhere he looks. So insecure and
paranoid, Marky?